DECISION

Giant Brands, Inc. v. Eng Song Puah

Claim Number:  FA0401000228082

PARTIES

Complainant is Giant Brands, Inc., 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1202, Wilmington, DE 19801 (“Complainant”) represented by Jonathan P. Miller, of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC.  Respondent is Eng Song Puah, Sydneyhouse, Sydney, NSW 2140 (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <giant-pharmacy.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 21, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 21, 2004.

On January 27, 2004, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <giant-pharmacy.com> is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On January 27, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 16, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@giant-pharmacy.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On February 26, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <giant-pharmacy.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s GIANT PHARMACY mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <giant-pharmacy.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <giant-pharmacy.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant provides pharmaceutical products and drug store services under the GIANT PHARMACY mark.  Complainant owns numerous registrations relating to its GIANT related marks (e.g. Reg. Nos. 1085784, 1129400, 1348729, 2676252, 2702297).   Specifically, the GIANT PHARMACY mark was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on January 29, 1999 (Ser. No. 75/630169) and registered on February 15, 2000 (Reg. No. 2319083).

Through its predecessor in interest, Complainant has continuously used the GIANT related marks in commerce since as early as February 12, 1964 and Complainant began using the GIANT PHARMACY mark in 1998.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 15, 2003.  The domain name is being used to sell pharmaceutical products and to provide online prescriptive consultation services.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has met its burden in establishing rights in the GIANT PHARMACY mark as a result of its USPTO registration and continuous use. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”).

The GIANT PHARMACY mark is identical to the disputed domain name <giant-pharmacy.com> because the addition of a hyphen and the generic top-level domain “.com” are irrelevant under the Policy. See Chernow Communications Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (“The use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark."); see also Teradyne Inc. v. 4Tel Tech., D2000-0026 (WIPO May 9, 2000) (“[The] addition of a hyphen to the registered mark is an insubstantial change. Both the mark and the domain name would be pronounced in the identical fashion, by eliminating the hyphen."); see also InfoSpace.com v. Ofer, D2000-0075 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (“The domain name <info-space.com> is identical to Complainant’s INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hyphen and .com are not distinguishing features.”); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that the addition of a top-level domain is without legal significance).

Therefore, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is established for Complainant.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to construe Respondent’s omission as an implicit admission that it lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.”); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).

Respondent has failed to provide any evidence and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, is a factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the attached website markets products that compete with Complainant’s goods offered under the GIANT PHARMACY mark. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. d/b/a SAFLOK v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. Beaty Enters., FA 135008 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2003) (finding that Respondent, as a competitor of Complainant, had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that utilized Complainant’s mark for its competing website); see also Chip Merch., Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide offering of goods).

Therefore, Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent and Complainant are competitors operating in the pharmaceutical business. As previously stated, Respondent registered Complainant’s mark in an identical corresponding domain name. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by registering the name primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor, Complainant.  See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business).

Moreover, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because it has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s GIANT PHARMACY mark. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the same services as Complainant via his website); see also Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent initially used the domain name at issue to resolve to a website offering similar services as Complainant into the same market).

Therefore, Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <giant-pharmacy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  March 9, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/349.html